Niels wrote:
> On Friday 09 May 2008 08:07, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> >> >> In the very first episode, Adama realized that the cylon couldn't
get
> >> >> to them if they didn't network their computers. And that only the
good
> >> >> old fighters from the museum stood a chance. That, to me, was a
clear
> >> >> reactionary anti-tech notion, and thereby a mark of non SF.
> >>
> >> > It was a homage to the old show! Get over it!
> >>
> >> No way, it's a central point early on.
> >
> > If you don't recognize a homage when you see one, there's nothing I
> > can do about it. For me (who've only seen very tiny bits of the
> > original series, and basically found it unwatchable) it was great fun.
> > The designs (and characters) are some of the only things that still
> > connect the new show to the old, and they've done it in a way that
> > both honors and satirizes the old show. I think it is brilliantly
> > done.
>
> I can't see how this could possibly be an homage. It's not a detail in
the
> background, it has actual meaning in the plot. It's im****tant, not part
of
> the dressing.
Nevertheless. There's no rule limiting the element of a homage. And
since the only reason for its being there is to make the style and
design more like the old show in order to satisfy the old fans, it's
certainly a homage, and I think it is worked expertly into the new
story. It's not my fault that you don't know a homage when it bites
you in the butt.
> In a later episode, the Cylons easily started breaking into
> the system when our heroes coupled them together, which is almost as
> ridiculous as sparks flying out of the control panels on the Enterprise.
I think it's alright. Viruses spread through connected systems. That's
true today; why wouldn't it be true in the BSG world?
> >> >> You're the one who says that there only has
> >> >> to be a space****p for something to be SF.
> >>
> >> > Space****ps are good. I could eat them up. Yummy. But first and
> >> > foremost there has to be a scientific attitude.
> >>
> >> So putting a murder mystery in a space****p isn't necessarily science
> >> fiction?
> >
> > Science fiction is whatever science fiction fans find interesting.
>
> What??? This is a completely new definition, which is obviously
completely
> false. What're you trying to pull here???
>
> > Science fiction fans tend to like space****ps, so a story in a
> > space****p setting is, ipso-facto, science fiction. In any case, if
> > there's a space****p in the story, there's a great probability that the
> > basic world view of the tale is a scientific one as well, also making
> > it science fiction.
> >
> You'd twisting otherwise straightforward concepts to have them fit with
you
> preconceived notions.
I'm sorry if the plasticity and applicability of my conceptual
apparatus overwhelms your limited intellect.
> >> > How can the non-science of time-travel be related to
> >> > existing scientific laws? You're trying to trap me into exposing my
> >> > partial ignorance of specific science, but my name is Alan
Greenspan
> >> > and I don't work that way! (Now *there's* an obscure comics
reference
> >> > if ever there was one!) My knowledge of nitty-gritty science is
> >> > admittedly relatively limited - I mostly work with large abstract
> >> > questions -, and what detailed knowledge I do have tends to be
> >> > passive, so I can't volunteer it. But I can analyze it into next
week
> >> > if you present it to me for scrutiny! But I still don't see how
actual
> >> > science has any real relevance to the non-science of time-travel.
> >>
> >> Your knowledge of science and the history of scienc is absolutely
> >> limited. "Large abstract questions" is your way of saying
"philosophy",
> >> even if you wont admit it.
> >
> > I'll admit it. Since the scientific community doesn't agree about what
> > comprises the deep underpinnings of science, they aren't going to
> > agree that my ideas are scientific, and hence I must, for now, call
> > them philosophical. For now.
>
> You've said that before, but you're still, time and time again, using
the
> word "science" in your own personal meaning.
That makes two of us.
> You're really not being honest
> about this. In one sentence you say that science means what people
> generally take it to mean, in the next science is some grand human
scheme.
> Then it's philosophy and soon "Science fiction is whatever science
fiction
> fans find interesting". Really!
These things are all true. And yes I'm being philosophical in my
approach, because that's the only way our current understanding is
going to evolve. Some of the areas that aren't scientific yet must be
pushed into the realm of science by philosophical analysis and
inquiry. And yeah, I sometimes use "my own" (i.e. what I am convinced
will be the future) definition of science, and this will make some
people confused. However, at least I have some new and original ideas,
unlike *some* people... and to people who are close to understanding
what I'm saying, I can argue very well for my position. Unfortunately,
you are not among those people...
> I think you should accept that what people generally, and scientists in
> particular, think of as science is all that which you carelessly dismiss
> as "nitty-gritty science". Math, research, logic, statistics,
experiments,
> forming hypothesis and theories, looking for errors, finding
> correlations -- that's what it's all about.
That's a simplistic, primitive and untrue claim.
> We are at the scientific and
> technological level we are today, because thousands and thousands of
people
> put hard work into those fields, not because a group of dedicated
> philosophers thought and wrote about their personal interpretations of
> what "to be" actually means.
Just because they're not so readily visible, foundational paradigms
are there all the same.
- Tue
|
